ChargerDojo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint=true, so no safety contradictions exist. The description adds some useful context by saying the output covers protocol changes and gained modules, but it does not go into details like return format or whether the comparison is version-ordered. Neutral and adequate, though not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'two OCPI versions', followed by exactly the useful specifics. No filler or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity, read-only comparison tool with two well-described enum parameters, the description names the input and the nature of the result. It does not detail the exact output format, but no output schema exists and the context is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%: both 'from' and 'to' have descriptions with examples and allowed enum values. The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('compare') and resource ('two OCPI versions'), and clarifies what the comparison entails: protocol changes and modules ChargerDojo gained. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or get individual versions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: any time an agent needs a comparison between two OCPI versions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or route to an alternative, but the 'compare' framing is unambiguous enough in the context of the siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool explains which tools are open and which require an API key, which is beyond the read-only property signal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence fully conveys the tool's purpose and scope. There is no wasted text, and the wording is front-loaded with the core intent 'Explain what this server can do'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter informational tool, the description is complete: it states what the output conveys (server capabilities and access requirements) and the readOnlyHint annotation covers side-effect transparency. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with full coverage, so parameter semantics are inherently satisfied. The description doesn't need to document any parameters, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb, 'Explain', and a specific resource: what 'this server can do' and access requirements. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like chargerdojo_list_ocpi_versions or chargerdojo_get_ocpi_version, which list versions rather than describing overall server capabilities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly frames this as the starting-point tool for understanding the server and its access requirements. It gives clear context for when to call it, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives as competitors.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the output covers: token encoding, endpoint structure, module coverage, and known limits. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of the response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates four useful aspects in a compact list format. There is no filler and every phrase adds distinct meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete: it names the input, defines the output dimensions, and the schema handles validation. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by saying exactly what topics the response will describe.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully documents the version parameter, including its enum values and an example. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Describe one OCPI version' and immediately lists the specific dimensions covered (credentials token encoding, sender/receiver split, modules, limits). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_ocpi_versions and compare_ocpi_versions by focusing on a single version's detailed profile.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the usage context clear: this is for a detailed explanation of exactly one OCPI version, not an overview of all versions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when this tool should not be used, but the scope is precise enough to guide an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description adds no behavioral concerns such as authentication, rate limits, or side effects. It does add the useful detail that results are grouped by module and include counts, but no additional behavioral traits beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence delivers the core purpose, the grouping behavior, and the check-count detail with zero filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return shape: conformance suites grouped by module with check counts. It is sufficiently complete, though it could have briefly noted when to prefer this over listing OCPI versions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully documents the only parameter, version, with an example ('2.2.1'), and the description does not need to repeat it. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource ('OCPI conformance suites') and verb ('List'), plus the grouping by module and check counts. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like chargerdojo_list_ocpi_versions and chargerdojo_list_journey_templates without needing to open schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it: when the agent needs to see which conformance suites are available to run and how large they are. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as chargerdojo_list_ocpi_versions or chargerdojo_list_journey_templates.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, and the description adds extra context: the built-in sandbox scope and the non-obvious detail that returned entries include run duration. It does not contradict the annotation, and the missing details (e.g., exact time units) are minor for a parameterless read-only list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single sentence with the action verb and resource up front, followed by the sandbox scope and the duration detail. Every clause carries useful information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-covered read-only list tool, this description is functionally complete: it names the resource, the environment scope, and the key returned field (duration). More detail about exact result shape or time units would be useful but is not necessary for deciding to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no properties, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the 0-parameter baseline applies. The description usefully focuses on what results will contain rather than inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('OCPI charging journeys'), and a clear scope ('built-in sandbox'), while adding the result detail that the tool also reports each journey's duration. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_conformance_suites and list_ocpi_versions, which target different resource types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly communicates the relevant use case: discovering which OCPI charging journeys are runnable against the built-in sandbox and how long they take. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it doesn't reach the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context by revealing that output includes version purpose and implemented modules, but it discloses no additional traits like pagination, result counts, or availability of versions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one compact sentence that immediately states the action and resource and then adds the two key details the agent cares about: the purpose of each OCPI version and the implemented modules. No filler or repetition exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter list operation with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description gives enough context to know what the tool will return—all OCPI versions, their purposes, and modules — but omits any mention of result format or whether the list can be filtered. This is a very minor gap for a simple list call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The schema confirms no inputs, and the description's focus on what is listed is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List the OCPI versions ChargerDojo covers,' and adds the specific purpose of showing what each version is for and which modules are implemented. It is distinguishable from 'chargerdojo_get_ocpi_version' in implying an all-versions overview rather than a single version, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as chargerdojo_get_ocpi_version or chargerdojo_compare_ocpi_versions. The intended use is implied by the verbs ('list' vs. 'get'/'compare'), but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.